Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Long-Term Wikipedia Vandalism Exposed

Posted by kdawson on Mon Nov 06, 2006 02:39 AM
from the pseudoscience-and-self-promotion dept.
The Internet
Daveydweeb writes, "The accuracy of Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, came into question again when a long-standing article on 'NPA personality theory' was confirmed to be a hoax. Not only had the article survived at Wikipedia for the better part of a year, but it had even been listed as a 'Good Article,' supposedly placing it in the top 0.2-0.3% of all Wikipedia articles — despite being almost entirely written by the creator of the theory himself."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Long-Term Wikipedia Vandalism Exposed 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • This is why you need multiple sources (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nukem996 (624036) on Monday November 06 2006, @02:45AM (#16732343)
    Personally I think wikipedia should be treated as any other source, you should have at least one other, independent, source that backs up the first. I've found mistakes in the college text books that I pay hundreds of dollars for, so if your only going by one source your bound to get screwed. What I really like about wikipedia is that it gives you great sources that you can use, check up on those sources as well.
    • 1 back up source? back in my day we had to have 3 sources for all material. Damn
      • Thats why I said at least one other source. I agree you should have more, especially for long papers. But short 2-3 page papers two is usually fine.

    • Wikipedia should NEVER be cited (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pavan_Gupta (624567) <`pg8p' `at' `virginia.edu'> on Monday November 06 2006, @03:08AM (#16732465)
      nukem996, you are not wrong in suggesting that people should use multiple sources when writing things, but the truth is people should never cite wikipedia as a source. It's not because the information is wrong, but it's because the information has not been vetted in a process that can be methodically demonstrated. Even peer-reviewed journals can fail, and they do, but the truth is the information contained in those journals is being vetted by people with backgrounds in related fields and the information is being analyzed in a way that is methodically laid out. If Wikipedia was designed in that way -- where the process was highly moderated, then it would be a legitimate source, not unlike how a book or a journal is a legitimate source. (Although old books and journals are wrong in the worst kinds of ways... sometimes)

      I've written several articles on Wikipedia on obscure things (Phosphatidylmyo-inositol_mannosides [wikipedia.org]) which was just an exercise in me understanding my own research, but the stuff I've written, even if heavily sourced on Wikipedia is so obscure I could just make up anything about that and it would likely fly. And the truth is, if I write anything that seems correct, for the most part it will last because it seems correct And therein lies the problem that an unmoderated system cannot solve for. Wikipedia assumes honorable and intelligent users and gives enormous privileges to these users, when just one bad apple can go around slowly obscuring fact with fiction.

      Anyway, I've ranted here which is not what I really wanted, but my point is simple: Wikipedia is a good starting point, but should never ever be used as a cited source. Find the information you discover in Wikipedia in another source and use that. And, because you should be a good wikipedia user, put that source into the article.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Anyway, I've ranted here which is not what I really wanted, but my point is simple: Wikipedia is a good starting point, but should never ever be used as a cited source. Find the information you discover in Wikipedia in another source and use that. And, because you should be a good wikipedia user, put that source into the article.

        Good post. I'd like to elaborate on one important reason for this.

        One of Wikipedia's policies is that no Wikipedia articles should contain any original research. And so any ideas

      • Re:Wikipedia should NEVER be cited (Score:4, Interesting)

        by GreatBunzinni (642500) on Monday November 06 2006, @06:16AM (#16733309)
        but the stuff I've written, even if heavily sourced on Wikipedia is so obscure I could just make up anything about that and it would likely fly.

        People frequently make the mistake of thinking that this problem is exclusive to wikipedia. That is false. That problem plagues every aspect of Academia that it isn't even funny. Everyone who spent his fair share of research hours in any university library already stumbled on contradictory information, incorrections and even outright lies on publications adopted by the libraries and in even cases by the courses themselves. These are publications which were heavily edited and in some cases even reeditions.

        Moreover, academic fraud is always popping up. Things like falsifying results and messing up with the research variables pop up from time to time. If that type of fraud happens on academic circles where the scientific method is intensely applied and revered, why does it shock anyone when someone makes stuff up in a wiki? But thankfully in a wiki there may be quite a few eyes monitoring the development and, when necessary, edit the text and correct that. That doesn't happen with a book.

    • Let's not forget that the accuracy at major, respectable news organizations is often crap. In an article on the Washington Post's "newsbytes" news service, back in the '90s, they said my name was Dave (it's Greg) and that I ran the Internet Movie Database (at the time I was an outside contractor providing a weekly column). It was flattering in that they named my column as one of their top three reasons to get a modem for Christmas, but... Dave's not here.

      A few months earlier, I was getting nasty letter

  • How many times... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KeiserSoze (657078) on Monday November 06 2006, @02:51AM (#16732375) Homepage
    ... does Wikipedia have to be written off as a be-all-end-all 100% accurate encyclopedia? With just short of one and a half million entries, I'm sure there's at least 10,000 partial or even complete fictional articles. Does it affect the encyclopedia as a whole? Not at all. The only people it affects clearly believe *everything* they read on the internet, irregardless of source.

    Saying that a certain percentage of articles undermines the whole encyclopedia is likening everybody to criminals just because some of us are.

    I just can't believe people are still beating this drum - when will individual cases like this stop making /. news?

  • Not a Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sangreal66 (740295) on Monday November 06 2006, @02:55AM (#16732399)
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I just read the AfD page and it doesn't appear that this was a hoax or vandalism at all. What it was, was a well written article on a theory that did not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. It was also written by the creator of the theory which is against Wikipedia's policies on original research.
    • Exactly my thoughts. It's not a "hoax", it's just not up to standards. If someone else had written about this little-known/accepted theory, it would be a fine article.

  • Proof the system works (Score:5, Insightful)

    by theLOUDroom (556455) on Monday November 06 2006, @02:55AM (#16732403)
    I'd say it's more like proof that the system works.

    Sure you can create a false article. It's not like scientists have never falsified their research and published it in a journal, for example.

    The proof is whether they're caught and the mistakes are corrected. In an obscure subject this may take a while in ANY format.

    People need to learn to apply good research skills across the board, not just to wikis.
    Considering the source is one of these.
    • I'd say it's more like proof that the system works.

      Sure it works - but not even remotely to specs. Wikipedia consistently claims that 'problem articles' are (supposedly) caught and fixed in fairly short order. (Minutes to hours is the figure most often bandied about.) Yet here, and in the Siegenthaler Affair, is a case of a problem article that persisted for months.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by catbutt (469582)
        I think a more meaningful metric for how much harm was done was how many people were exposed to the article. If only 500 people visited it in that year, that's pretty much equivalent to a more prominent "bad article" that was only up for 10 minutes, if 500 people visited it during those 10 minutes.
  • Nobody's claiming that Wikipedia is 100% accurate. Even closed encyclopedias though can contain errors. The point is that those errors are less likely to be detected since very few people have access.
    • Very few people have access to encyclopaedias?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by _Ludwig (86077)
          Just because you haven't availed yourself of traditional encyclopaedias doesn't mean that they aren't available to you.

          As to your second point, that's a false dichotomy. No one is claiming that the Encyclopaedia Britannica (or any other traditional encyclopaedia) is 100% accurate, but I think it's fair to say that you won't find entries in the E.B. along the lines of "KLINGON: Klingons are toal fagz omg!"

          Veering off-topic, much of the active Wikipedia population suffers from the very same affliction en

  • ....surely the creator of a theory is the most qualified person to write about that theory?

  • Is it possible to read deleted articles? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ymgve (457563) on Monday November 06 2006, @02:57AM (#16732415) Homepage
    Is it possible to read deleted articles on Wikipedia in any way? I know articles are deleted for a reason, but it seems like a Bad Thing that once an article is judged unworthy, all its history and edits disappear into a black hole.

    I know that right now I can use caches or Wikipedia mirrors to access the article, but imagine if somebody ten years into the future want to read the offending article. (It had to have some interesting stuff, since it had been picked out as a Good Article earlier.)
    • Is it possible to read deleted articles on Wikipedia in any way?

      Wikipedia admins are able to view deleted edits and deleted articles. General users cannot, however. As a rule, very few things ever completely disappear from Wikipedia--someone, at some rank, can access past and deleted versions.

    • From what I understand, they aren't actually deleted - they're hidden from non-admins. So you can request to view a deleted page if you wish, although you might not always be given access to it. For example, if a page contained personal information about someone that they didn't want available, then you shouldn't get access to it. If a historian in the future wanted access to it, then they'd probably get a copy of it. See this page [wikipedia.org] for more information.

  • Misleading Summary (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BeeBeard (999187) on Monday November 06 2006, @03:12AM (#16732481)
    Now I'm just convinced that even the people who submit articles don't read them first. This wasn't "vandalism" per se so much as it was shameless self-promotion by Anthony M. Benis, who invented the same psychological theory that he would later write about on Wikipedia. While his knowledge and authority on the theory are not in question (what with his being the creator of it), the notability of the theory in the field of psychology is in question.

    It seems that the true nature of the article is far, far more boring than what the summary leads you to believe.
  • The basic complain is that the NPA Personality is not really a widely accepted theory that was promoted on the Wikipedia by the author of the theory himself. Notable or not, the NPA Personality theory was published, thought not accepted. That doesn't make the article vandalism or a hoax. The author is self-promoting on Wikipedia and violates the no primary research rule. It doesn't really say anything about the Wikipedia system. The fact that it was caught and then voted for deletion means the Wikipedi
  • I fail to see how this is a black mark against Wikipedia. The theory is genuine, just not really worth mentioning. If you read the deletion discussion, you'll see that Wikipedia is working just fine. A whole bunch of people had an intelligent, generally respectful discussion about the merits of the piece, then decided to remove it after due consideration. 'Vandalism'? I think not.
    • A priest, a rabbi, and buddhist monk all walk into a bar. They enjoyed each other's company and had a wonderful time.

      *yawn*
  • I have to ask - is this Slashdot Anti-Wikipedia day? There have been three anti-Wikipedia articles in the last 24 hours or so.
  • I read a few comments on the talk pages. It was interesting to see how the problem was approached and dealt with. My conclusion is that Wikipedia needs releases like Linux distros.

    The user could indicate in a profile whether she wants stable/testing or unstable pages, maybe even sections/volumes whatever could be separately specified.

    The stable version could only be edited by assigned editors and mostly for typos and broken references and such. If an error is found it could be indicated with a note of di
    • Are you badmouthing my grandmother?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TheRaven64 (641858)
          I completely agree. I have found a few articles vanish without a trace recently. Wikipedia used to have some great content on the Swansea University Computer Society (where Alan Cox began his kernel hacking career), but it was marked for deletion because the society was not notable, despite being the largest university computer society in the UK. It was marked for deletion once, and the verdict was keep. Then, a month later, deletion was proposed again, with the same reasons, and passed. Now there is n
    • This submission title is misleading. If a scientist creates a "crackpot" theory and it has a name and the details of his theory are in wikipedia, what's the problem? All the discussion in the link relates to him not being "notable" enough to be in there.

      This info isn't "unconfirmed". NPA personality theory exists:

      NPA personality theory is not widely known in psychology. As far as I can tell, there is only a single unique publication about NPA theory: Toward Self and Sanity by Anthony M. Benis, a bo
      • Wikipedia only allows notable information and explicitly rejects original research. The author of the article is the same as the author of the theory, and no one in his field has apparently commented on, referenced, cited, or even criticized his work. That means he's not a notable subject for a wikipedia article. Furthermore, since he's the only person in the world who expounds this theory, it counts as original research--wikipedia editors are not allowed to add their own original research to articles.
        • Cool, in that case I won't mention all the original ideas and research that I've entered into wikipedia over the years, glad I did it anonymously.
        • If I can borrow a book on NPR theory at the library then it deserves to have a wikipedia entry describing what it is. Period. And I could go and borrow such a book.

          If wikipedias rules preclude this, then wikipedias rules are wrong.
          • Well, see, you probably COULDN'T "borrow a book on NPR theory at the library", because there was only ONE book ever published on the subject (by the same person who wrote the majority of edits on the "to be deleted" Wikipedia entry), a book published in 1985 and long-since out of print.

            Now still think there's anything wrong with deleting that article ?

          • Well, you clearly have a different standard of notability than mainstream Wikipedians. Although Wikipedia is far more inclusive than a paper encyclopedia, they are not indiscriminate in what they will take. While Wikipedia is not paper [wikipedia.org], it's also not a place for a person's original research [wikipedia.org], nor is it an information dump [wikipedia.org].

            If someone publishes a vanity book on their own personal theory which no one in their field has read, criticized, cited, expanded upon, analyzed, etc., it's flat-out not notable. It's

      • "i", "english", "ppl", "all", "in short", [plus general punctuation mistakes/omissions]

        Somehow I don't think Wikipedia is your English teacher's main concern with you.

      • Re:Really? Unconfirmed info on wikipedia?!? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by vadim_t (324782) on Monday November 06 2006, @04:46AM (#16732879) Homepage
        Newsflash: You aren't supposed to use ANY sort of encyclopedia as a source of anything. Encyclopedias are there to provide a starting point about a topic, not to be used themselves as part of the school work or whatever.

        If you ever cite any sort of encyclopedia in your work, any decent teacher should give you a big fat 0. Only valid use of an encyclopedia is checking an entry for something you're unfamiliar with, to learn a general overview and get leads about what you should research.
    • The article was deleted. Wikipedia admins can still view it, but general users will no longer have access. Not really all that interesting an article anyway.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.